"or just play for fun; which is what this site is meant to be." It would be a lot more fun if they changed the scoring system to reflect the intangibles of CC that are not present in a chess. game! Damn man did you even read my post or did you just glaze over it and write a response to what you wanted me to have meant?

Hey, if i followed your logic we shouldnt try to improve anything! let's just hang out, be mellow and smoke a dube.. is that your life philosophy?

FIX THE DAMN SYSTEM>

Last edited by SgtMadDog on Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SgtMadDog wrote:If they dont adjust the formula for all the examples i gave then might as well have a set amount for all players. if you are good then you'll win more games and your points will reflex that, if not they will reflect that skill level as well. as it is now a bad player can win 1 game out of five against a good player and still gain points which shouldnt be the case. as i read the current points/rank system was designed for games of pure skill such as chess. this is not chess, the board changes every game and luck is involved in 75% of it. A change is needed and if you dont see that then you are homophobic nazi who hates asparagus!

first, thanks for flaming/baiting half the people on the thread.

second, no it's not perfect. In chess, there is one way to play. You play against one opponent, with the same rules (same "map" and "settings") every time. CC is totally different. There are a ton of options, and your score isn't going to reflect your ability in every option. Now if you have some simple, magic formula that will allow everyone's score to perfectly reflect their ability in every map/game type, please share.

If not, you're gonna have to choose whether you want to exploit the flaws in the scoring system and raise your score, or just play for fun; which is what this site is meant to be.

And secondly.... I'm not flaming/baiting anyone. I'm stating my opinion. If you're offended or more likely don't comprehend it. well then welcome to the real world. You must work in a government agency, or maybe you get paid $40hr to tighten a lugnut on an assembly line? whatever it is i bet it's union work!!!

Flames are posts or parts of posts which, directly or indirectly, insult, belittle, bully, name-call, or otherwise attack another user is not allowed.

so yes.

state what you have to say, but the pointsystem is not "broken". It might not be the best system, but if you have a better one, please submit it to the suggestions forum and see if you can rally enough support to get it accepted.. do not go on with your flaming in the Q&A section.

SgtMadDog wrote:if you dont see that then you are homophobic nazi who hates asparagus!

This line is what I was originally citing as a flame. That goes beyond your opinion, directly attacks any and everyone that disagrees with you.

SgtMadDog wrote:You must work in a government agency, or maybe you get paid $40hr to tighten a lugnut on an assembly line? whatever it is i bet it's union work!!!

lol, I get paid much less than that per hour the 8 hours per week I work (at least for most of year, more in the summer)

SgtMadDog wrote:"or just play for fun; which is what this site is meant to be." It would be a lot more fun if they changed the scoring system to reflect the intangibles of CC that are not present in a chess. game! Damn man did you even read my post or did you just glaze over it and write a response to what you wanted me to have meant?

Hey, if i followed your logic we shouldnt try to improve anything! let's just hang out, be mellow and smoke a dube.. is that your life philosophy?

FIX THE DAMN SYSTEM>

Sure, it would be more fun. However, since there is luck involved the scoring system will never be perfect, because luck will always skew the results somewhat. As I said, if you have a solution I would love to hear it, but I'm almost positive there's not a way for everyone to have one score that accurately portrays their abilities throughout CC's many game options. Yes, clearly I read your post. Most of your post was a list of complaints. Here is the best part of your post:

SgtMadDog wrote:if you are good then you'll win more games and your points will reflex that, if not they will reflect that skill level as well. as it is now a bad player can win 1 game out of five against a good player and still gain points which shouldnt be the case.

You stated the problem well. Then, in my post, I answered:

jrh_cardinal wrote:if you have some simple, magic formula that will allow everyone's score to perfectly reflect their ability in every map/game type, please share.

so, yes, I read and responded to your post. Now, do you have a good solution to the problem?

SgtMadDog wrote:if you are good then you'll win more games and your points will reflex that, if not they will reflect that skill level as well. as it is now a bad player can win 1 game out of five against a good player and still gain points which shouldnt be the case.

question, WHY exactly should a player not get point for winning against a vastly superior player? if its 4 losses and 1 win and the net result is you get ahead, well good for you. the relative strength of the higher player is diminished, since he lost 1in4 where he should have lost 1-5. In absolute terms however the stronger player rightly stays the stronger player.Both pointranks reflect that. I really do not see the problem in the system itself.now about CC, that has a lot of overvalued players. Maybe you are such a player, maybe not. I cannot tell. Fact is some players with (relative) higher scores have not really earned them at all. they have simply gotten lucky or have played against similar players and thus won more points then they should have.

somewhere i heard an idea of fixed rewards. now that the dumb. That only rewards those players who play a lot.

my suggestion is that you ignore rank and instead focus on having a good game.regards

ksslemp wrote:Well, I think they should change the formula at the least.

Just beat a newb and was awarded "3 POINTS"!!! weeeeeeThen lost to one and lost 54. Where is the fairness in that????

i suggest you visit the suggestions forum and make a post there.otherwise. a low ranker half your points should be beatable by you twice at much as he can beat you... Maybe you should better pick on someone your own size..

Thats all very well,but my games are open to all big or small.A lot of the lower ranks miss turns and this is reflected in the rank they hold.Some of the the top ten have win ratios of less then 30%.Some cooks have actually won more games then them.Something need to be done about the scoring system and players without unique defeats should be stripped of points at the end of each month for non-playing.So I do not think its about picking on players,its a much bigger issue.

I don't understand.You have a problem with top ten players have played less games then a noob and with win percentages of 30% or less?? I mean, if they managed to get there, then they must have won a lot more then average against players much higher ranked. So they picked their battles.

If you have a problem with picking battle's you could participate in the alternative tourny setting open for all players. the highest ranked there is the one who wins the most..

You cannot give fixed points for a win, cause then the most active player (as opposed to the best) will have the most pointsyou cannot force players to play eachother in a fixed schedule. some players just dont turn up even for tournaments they signed up themselves..I understand the current point-system, and though its not entirely fair, i'd like to hear a better one instead of whats wrong with this one.

SirSebstar wrote:I don't understand.You have a problem with top ten players have played less games then a noob and with win percentages of 30% or less?? I mean, if they managed to get there, then they must have won a lot more then average against players much higher ranked. So they picked their battles.

If you have a problem with picking battle's you could participate in the alternative tourny setting open for all players. the highest ranked there is the one who wins the most..

You cannot give fixed points for a win, cause then the most active player (as opposed to the best) will have the most pointsyou cannot force players to play eachother in a fixed schedule. some players just dont turn up even for tournaments they signed up themselves..I understand the current point-system, and though its not entirely fair, i'd like to hear a better one instead of whats wrong with this one.

Use the current system but change the formula values to reflect the luck and other intangibles reflective of this type of game.It aint brain surgery! I don't understand the mentality of thinking it will never be perfect so lets not TRY to make it more so!

sigh, how indeed.I know i'd like to add luck, attention and add on programs to factor into the scoring, i just dont see how another formula could be more fair. So lest start with the exact formula and then explain to me why its more fair.

Its not a fair system where players feel they can't play lower ranks,because they'll lose to many points and where cooks that have won more games then a general.I hope that has cleared up what I posted before..I know I was ranting a little.I'm sorry.

ksslemp wrote:Well, I think they should change the formula at the least.

Just beat a newb and was awarded "3 POINTS"!!! weeeeeeThen lost to one and lost 54. Where is the fairness in that????

i suggest you visit the suggestions forum and make a post there.otherwise. a low ranker half your points should be beatable by you twice at much as he can beat you... Maybe you should better pick on someone your own size..

Which means the lower ranker should get 6 points for a win to ksslemp's 3 points for a win.... not 54 to 3.

It should only be 54:3 if the newer player was 18 times more 'beatable' than the higher player.

KoE_Sirius wrote:Its not a fair system where players feel they can't play lower ranks,because they'll lose to many points and where cooks that have won more games then a general.I hope that has cleared up what I posted before..I know I was ranting a little.I'm sorry.

As was said before, if its only about points then you need to pick your battles carefully. But over a longer period of time, the score will even out. The last time a Battle Royale was a standard game the guy who won made it to the #1 spot. He did not last there very long.... However, lots of player have been accused of farming low rankers. So you mean they were mathematically challenged? let me try a different tack. The system is what it is, people will try to take advantage anyways.. they always do. now i am wondering what your personal position is on what are highrankers and what are low rankers, and why highrankers dont want to play low rankers. its a slightly different debate, but i am interested because in the end its a game. I stink at assassin, but now that i have my gold medal i stink slightly less. Lost 75% of my rank, was close to becomming a cook, and i am back up today, so no big deal. pmy point, play enough games and you will make good any loss, .. provided you are that good. There are only a few players with low amounts of games in the top 100. they got there because of planning. that alone makes them decent players. if you plan as well you can get anywhere, whatever the system.. dont let imaginary points distract you from having a fun game.

stahrgazer wrote:

SirSebstar wrote:

ksslemp wrote:Well, I think they should change the formula at the least.

Just beat a newb and was awarded "3 POINTS"!!! weeeeeeThen lost to one and lost 54. Where is the fairness in that????

i suggest you visit the suggestions forum and make a post there.otherwise. a low ranker half your points should be beatable by you twice at much as he can beat you... Maybe you should better pick on someone your own size..

Which means the lower ranker should get 6 points for a win to ksslemp's 3 points for a win.... not 54 to 3.

It should only be 54:3 if the newer player was 18 times more 'beatable' than the higher player.

Take a 1000 point player versus an 6666 point player.. 3 points the the champion and 133 to the noob. the noob needs to be beaten aprox 44 times to even loose once for the champ. not 18.. and there are no 6666 players, so he must have taken on a player even lower.. much lower below the 1000 mark line.. i have to wonder why? But to get back on your comment, you mean the reward should outweigh the risk?, in time it will, but maybe that player was underrated, then you can just be glad you gave some points to get him to the place he belongs. if is was not underrated you won an easy victory..can you be clearer with an example for me so i can understand what your problem is?

eh no... or actually yes, in your example the noob is actually 18 times more beatable then the higher player so i wonder what your point is. unless you want to state that that particular noob has been underrated and is actually much stronger then he appears... well the system did not put him there. unless you t

I won't flog a dead horse.The ranking system of conquer is a funny thing.Boosters,cheats and risksnobs prosper.Suiciders,turn skippers and non-strategic players do not.For all the players actually joining in with the conquerclub experience and holding a rank above SGT,a win ratio above 25% and more then 25 medals fairplay to you.

Last edited by KoE_Sirius on Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

SgtMadDog wrote:Here's a question that should prove that most people on this site think the points system is screwed up.

Why do higher ranked players mostly play in private games and tournies?

first, they don't as sir sebstar said. but still, why are you complaining about tourneys? I lose to people under 1000 points multiple times a week in 1v1 games because i play so many tourneys. If I (or anyone) were trying to boost my score as much as possible, the first thing I would stop would be tourneys, they're terrible for the score.

Private games, many people like to play with friends. I don't think there are many people, high ranking or not, that play most of their games private outside of friends, clans, and usergroups. Sure there are some games, but not a lot

KoE_Sirius wrote:I won't flog a dead horse.The ranking system of conquer is a funny thing.Boosters,cheats and risksnobs prosper.Suiciders,turn skippers and non-strategic player do not.For all the players actually joining in with the conquerclub experience and holding a rank above SGT,a win ratio above 25% and more then 25 medals fairplay to you.

kudo's. in this i agree with you. even that the ranking system is funny.